Manufacturing Dissent

In his 1940 book The New World Order, H.G. Wells wrote:

… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we [must] bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people. (The New World Order)

Wells’ prognostication was, without a doubt, correct. As the global government envisioned by the supranational elite is gradually instantiated, many voices of dissent will be raised and subsequently eradicated. Yet, not every dissenter may “die protesting against it,” but will die unwittingly embracing it instead. Some dissenters may, in fact, naively accept another form of global government being proffered as a viable alternative.

Such is the case with Zeitgeist: Addendum, the 2008 sequel to the pseudo-documentary entitled Zeitgeist, the Movie. The film was produced by Peter Joseph, a proponent of the inherently technocratic Venus Project. While the film presents a few valid critiques concerning the world monetary system, the military industrial complex, and America’s meddlesome foreign policy, it uses these political and social ills as a pretext for the presentation of counterfeit solutions. The movie’s prescriptions are posed within a distinctly Hegelian framework. In many instances, the solutions proffered by Zeitgeist: Addendum merely constitute dialectic extremes that produce precisely the same results as the problems that they allegedly address.

Moreover, Zeitgeist: Addendum either intentionally or unwittingly fails to recognize the problems for what they are: contrived grievances employed as polar extremes to perpetuate a dialectical climate. Instead, Zeitgeist: Addendum portrays the problems as the natural outgrowths of America’s constitutional republican system, thereby vilifying representative democracy and enshrining the technocratic paradigm. The film’s ultimate solution is little more than a Hegelian synthesis, as is evidenced by the dialectical commonalities between the Venus Project and the globalist forces that it purportedly opposes.

Paul and Phillip Collins are the authors of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship and they frequently contribute to www.conspiracyarchive.com. They also write for Vexilla Regis Journal: Confronting Culture for Christ the King. Our topic tonight is Weaponizing the Arts, which is likely to become part of their forthcoming book, Invoking the Beyond.

On September 30 the Army Times released a story that made observers of increased domestic militarization a bit uneasy. The article, entitled “Brigade homeland tours starts October 1,” stated that beginning in October the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) would be placed under the control of U.S. Army, which is the segment of Northern Command that deals with the Army (Cavallaro, no pagination). For the next 12 months, the 1st BCT will be used “as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks” (no pagination).

While this is not the first time an active duty unit has been called on to help at home, this is the first time, according to the article’s author Gina Cavallaro, that “an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities” (no pagination). When the BCT is deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan in 2010, another active duty unit will take its place, meaning that Americans can expect the involvement of active duty brigades domestically for a long time (no pagination).

Left to right:Wickliffe Preston Draper (1891-1972), founder and benefactor of the Pioneer Fund; on the Board of Directors (1937-72). Harry Hamilton Laughlin (1880-1943), Pres. (1927-28) and Dir. (1923-39) of the American Eugenics Society; Superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office in (1910-21) and its Director (1921-40); first president of the Pioneer Fund (1937-41). Frederick Henry Osborn (1890-1981), second president of the Pioneer Fund (1941–1958); Pres. (1946-52) and Dir. (1969-72) of the American Eugenics Society.

No one on America’s political stage today has more motivation to oppose eugenics than Sarah Palin. The Alaskan Governor and Vice-Presidential running mate has learned experientially about the sanctity of life. In April, she gave birth to a baby boy with Down syndrome (Demer, no pagination). When she first learned that the child would be born with the birth defect, Palin chose life in a situation where 90 percent of women have an abortion (no pagination). Lisa Demer has correctly described Palin “as anti-abortion as a politician can be” (no pagination).

It was, therefore, disturbing to learn that Palin had been vetted by a secretive group with connections to the eugenics movement. In a September 1, 2008 article for The Nation, Max Blumenthal reported that the “members of the Council for National Policy are the hidden hand behind McCain’s Palin pick” (no pagination). According to Blumenthal, the Council for National Policy (CNP) met at a hotel in downtown Minneapolis the week of the Democratic National Convention to acquaint themselves with Palin (no pagination). The article also stated that the Palin selection secured McCain the support of the conservative movement and that CNP participant James Dobson “may soon emerge from his bunker in Colorado Springs to endorse McCain, providing the Republican nominee with the backing of the Christian right’s single most influential figure” (no pagination).

For many people on the left, it is hard to swallow the idea that the CNP has ties to the eugenics movement. After all, CNP participants such as James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, and Alan Keyes are considered to be stalwart pro-lifers. George W. Bush even put in an appearance at a secret meeting of the CNP in 2000 promising to nominate only pro-life judges (no pagination). There is a body of evidence, however, that suggests that all the pro-life rhetoric and pro-life participants may be mere window dressing to hide the sinister goal of creating a master race.

Rushdoony’s Bastards and the Hijacking of the Ron Paul Revolution

by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, September 29th, 2008

A rare illustration of a Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC) ritual c.1861, replete with the secret society’s distinctive symbolism.

Previous installments of this series have examined the disturbing conjunction between the Minute Men, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Malthusian population control advocates, and Dominionist organizations like the Council for National Policy (CNP). The overall contention presented in this series is that there is a racist Fifth Column co-opting otherwise legitimate grassroots movements. This Fifth Column is connected to the intelligence community, tax exempt foundations, globalist organizations, and other conduits for elitist interests. The power elite hope to use this Fifth Column to radicalize activists within disparate enclaves, which will eventually be mobilized in a politically and socially expedient race war. If such a race war can be successfully fomented, then the United States can be balkanized. With the Republic atomized and constitutional governance broken, America can be assimilated into a socialist totalitarian world order.

This installment shall attempt to elucidate the neo-Confederate Trojan Horse within the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution.” Masquerading as libertarians, these neo-Confederates are trying to use Paul’s movement as a vehicle for divisive racial politics and secessionist objectives. Some of these neo-Confederate elements constitute a faction of the CNP, as is evidenced by the personages of Rousas John Rushdoony and Gary North. Given this continuity of CNP involvement in the promulgation of racial dialectics, it is clear that the same forces behind the radicalization of the Minute Men are also responsible for the corruption of the Ron Paul Revolution.

Some news pieces prove that those in power have absolutely no interest in the truth. One such story was carried in the July 1, 2008 Washington Post. The story concerned a former CIA operative who claims that the Agency ignored evidence that he had presented showing that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon in 2003 (Warrick, no pagination). According to a lawsuit filed by the operative in 2004, the CIA fired him when he attempted to file reports that contradicted the position held by the Administration and the Agency concerning weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East (no pagination). The operative’s lawyer, Roy Krieger, also stated that the operative was ordered by his superiors on five occasions to either fail to file reports or falsify reports concerning WMDs in the Near East (no pagination).

The operative, whose identity is currently being kept secret by the CIA, had his 22 year intelligence career come crashing down when he tried to share information gathered by an informant with “access to sensitive information about Iran’s nuclear program” (no pagination). When the informant provided the operative with secret evidence that Iran had ceased its pursuit of nuclear weapons, the hierarchy at the CIA suppressed the information and ended the operative’s handler relationship with the informant (no pagination). When the operative persisted in his attempts to get the evidence out, he was investigated for an inappropriate sexual relationship with an informant and illegal financial dealing (no pagination). The CIA failed to prove the accusations and the operative charged that he was the target of a campaign to discredit him (no pagination).

Defining Functionalism

In the dense academic language employed in the International Relations departments of most universities, “functionalism” refers to that policy of shifting responsibility for resolving various problems from the nation-state to international bodies “indirectly, by stealth.”[1] According to one key academic International Relations textbook, under functionalism “the role of governments is to be progressively reduced by indirect methods, and integration is to be encouraged by a variety of functionally based, cross-national ties.”[2] As international mechanisms expand in scope and authority, “the role of the nation-state would diminish and the prospects for world government [would] become more real”[3] The functionalist approach, quite simply, seeks to undermine the nation-state and build world government, not through a frontal assault but by outflanking it.

Readers of populist accounts of the New World Order would be more familiar with Richard N. Gardner’s formulation of functionalism presented in his article “The Hard Road to World Order” published in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) journal, Foreign Affairs in 1974. In his contribution to the “quest for a world structure that secures peace, advances human rights and provides conditions for economic progress”,[4] Gardner had endorsed an “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece…”[5] This “functional approach to world order”,[6] Gardner explained, would involve “inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis…”[7]

The impact of Gardner’s article on New World Order researchers is not to be underestimated; it is probably the most widely cited Foreign Affairs article in the genre, with many researchers crediting Gardner as the sole architect of that strategy. Dr. Steve Bonta, for example, the Executive Director of the Robert Welch University and a regular contributor to the John Birch Society’s periodical, The New American, declared in 2004 that Gardner was obviously “one of the most influential men alive” and the “intellectual godfather of the modern new world order.” That Gardner’s “program for world order” was still being followed three decades later, argued Bonta in a direct reference to Gardner’s 1974 article, was “testament to his cunning as a global strategist.”[8]

Author’s note: First published in 2012 on the Martin Frost website, Mr Baron did write me a heated response, but that served mainly to defend his criticisms of Israel and Jewish power, rather than to acknowledge he had misrepresented A.K. Chesterton’s views in disputing Macklin’s charge that Chesterton’s book was “anti-Semitic”. Note also that as Mr Baron no longer writes for Digital Journal – his tale of woe can be found here – I have updated this essay to put his work for Digital Journal in the past tense. Mr Baron now has a blog.

Up until March 2014, Alexander Baron was a prolific contributor to Digital Journal, writing on all manner of topics, but with a particular focus on music, crime and conspiracies. His efforts on the last topic are obviously noteworthy as he seems to share Robin Ramsay’s impatience with those conspiracy theorists that play fast and loose with the facts, or indeed make the most outrageous claims with little or no evidence. In doing so Baron gives the impression of being eminently reasonable, even intractable in his devotion to evidence over the attractions of ideology, and gratifyingly intolerant of those buffoonish flimflammers David Icke and Alex Jones. Indeed, many of Baron’s missives on Icke have much to commend as he has lambasted the oracle of the Isle of Wight for his embrace of censorship, purveying “nonsense” on 9/11, and for promoting “implausible” stories about the House of Rothschild supposedly “bankrolling Hitler.”

But, to abuse a much-abused cliché, appearances can be deceiving. A visit to Alexander Baron’s other website gives a different and more complete sense of his rather complex and controversialviews on political and historicalevents of somenote than can be detected from his Digital Journal pieces alone. Discerning readers would notice something of a gulf between the reasonable Alexander Baron who writes for the Digital Journal and the more controversial Alexander Baron, the Holocaust-denying opponent of “organised Jewry”, whose works grace www.infotextmanuscripts.org. But in his lengthy op-ed piece in Digital Journaldefending A.K. Chesterton (1896-1973) author of The New Unhappy Lords: An Exposure of Power Politics (1965), an early and uniquely British take on the New World Order conspiracy, Baron appears to bridge that gap between his two selves. The object of Baron’s ire is the article “Transatlantic Connections and Conspiracies: A.K. Chesterton and The New Unhappy Lords” by Graham Macklin, from the Journal of Contemporary History (April 2012).

We let cynicism and lies and partisan politics get the better of us, and we chucked the League out of the window to satisfy a miserable political quarrel…Our generation in America has betrayed its own children and the blood of the next war is on our hands.

Introduction

Since the late 1940s hundreds of books have been published purporting to reveal the existence of a conspiracy to establish a global totalitarian dictatorship or ‘New World Order’, complete with a world army, world currency, a global religion and world government. Some of the classic texts in this much-derided genre included The Blue Book of the John Birch Society (1959), Kent and Phoebe Courtney’s America’s Unelected Rulers (192), John Stormer’s None Dare Call It Treason (1964), Alan Stang’s The Actor (1968) and Gary Allen and Larry Abraham’s landmark work None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971). Many more important books about the N.W.O. appeared during the 1970s most of them written by Gary Allen including: Richard Nixon:The Man Behind The Mask, (1971), Kissinger: The Secret Side of the Secretary of State (1976) and The Rockefeller File (1976). Key titles of the 1980s included Larry Abraham’s Call It Conspiracy (1985), William P. Hoar’s Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History (1985), A. Ralph Epperson’s The Unseen Hand (1985), and James Perloff’s The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (1988).

The period since the 1990s, however, must count as a golden age for N.W.O. research with the market flooded with new authors and new theories incorporating UFOs, mind-control, ancient astronauts and genealogy. Among the most significant works in recent years are: William Cooper’s Behold a Pale Horse (1991), Jim Marrs’ Rule by Secrecy (1996), Fritz Springmeier’s The Bloodlines of the Illuminati (1995), and the plethora of books by British researcher David Icke – among them The Robots Rebellion (1995), The Biggest Secret (1999), Children of the Matrix (2001), Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster (2002) and Tales from the Time Loop (2004) – and his late American antagonist, Jim Keith, author of Casebook on Alternative 3 (1994), Black Helicopters Over America (1994) and Saucers of the Illuminati (1999). More recent contributions of note include British researcher Nicholas Hagger’s two volumes: The Syndicate (2004) and The Secret History of the West (2005); and Daniel Estulin’s The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2007).

All of these books go to great lengths to name the guilty parties, the organisations, families and individuals said to be behind the New World Order plot. Some of the groups named include secret societies such as the Illuminati, Freemasons, and Skull and Bones; and policy-planning organisations prime among them the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers and more recently the Project on the New American Century. The families and individuals identified include the usual suspects: the House of Rothschild, the Rockefellers (David Rockefeller in particular), Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘Colonel’ Edward House, George Bush Senior, and now George Bush Junior, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Reviewing the countless books, magazines, articles and websites critically examining the New World Order one cannot help but notice that in a remarkable oversight, the name of one seemingly obscure, yet actually very important figure is missing from this rollcall of the damned.

That individual, whose existence I first discussed in Part 1 of my series ‘Rockefeller Internationalism’ (which appeared in Nexus magazine in 2002/3), is Raymond Blaine Fosdick (1883-1972). In a career which included time as an aide to US General John Pershing (Commander of US forces in Europe during World War I) during the Paris Peace Conference; Under Secretary-General for the League of Nations in 1919-1920; and nearly three decades of close involvement in the network of foundations established by John D. Rockefeller Junior, including as a trustee to the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, the International Education Board, the General Education Board and the Rockefeller Foundation, and later president of three of these philanthropies, including 12 years as President of the Rockefeller Foundation; Fosdick hardly warrants being written off as a peripheral figure. John D. Rockefeller Junior once described Fosdick as one of his ‘close and valued associates for nearly forty years’;[1] yet he remains largely unknown to most readers of this genre and is rarely mentioned, if at all, by New World Order researchers.[2]

Facts, Fallacies and Fantasies about Jewish Power

According to their strongest critics, conspiracy theorists (or conspiracists) are, at best “harmless lunatics and amusing eccentrics”, but at worst, they resemble “the totalitarian immersion of cult members into herd thinking.” The litany of conspiracist sins, as compiled by Professor Stephen Plaut from the University of Haifa, is long:

Conspiracism feeds on misrepresentation of facts, outright lying, and tendentious twisting of unrelated factoids into a grand theory. Conspiracists take the logical fallacy, the non sequitur, to incredible heights. They are notoriously prone to rearrangement of their perception of reality based upon the mere power of suggestion.

Chip Berlet, an American researcher long associated with the Southern Poverty Law Center, also charges conspiracists with utilising “common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent.” More colourfully, Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay, in his book Among the Truthers (2011), asserts that all conspiracy theorists share the common trait of having “spun out of rationality’s ever-weakening gravitational pull, and into mutually impenetrable Manichean fantasy universes of their own construction.” Of course, neither Professor Plaut, nor Mr Berlet, nor even Mr Kay can be considered disinterested observers when it comes to the apparent dangers posed by conspiracism. But that does not invalidate their essential observation about the fallacies and fantasies that populate the conspiracist sphere.

One of the common fallacies often employed by conspiracists is the “straw man”, which is defined by Wikipedia as:

an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.